[Marxism] Banal Platitudes and Marxism-Clulesslism

["Charles Brown" <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Weren't the original works from which the quotes came readily available for
those who would read them ? Not many average people are likely to study
Marx, Engels and Lenin in depth on their own, I'd imagine.

Seems to me the basic idea of the Party pronouncing on these was fundamental
to democracy, even if Stalin radically betrayed democracy otherwise. The
whole Soviet project was based on Marxism, theoretically. That was a novel
situation. The average citizen wouldn't have too much knowledge of Marxism,
and the collected writings of M,E and L were and are vast. Basic training in
Marxism -  Marxism for Dummies - would be a necessary step for an informed
population.

We would want a unity of Party and state, theoretically. That it was abused
by Stalin, doesn't make the basic idea a wrong one for a newly established
Marxist system.

As to authoritative pronouncements on what people are to believe, this type
of claim runs into the same contradiction as all claims that Marxism is like
a religion. The trouble is if one pays attention to the content of the
"quotes" they are inherently anti-religious. For example, explicitly saying
that these ideas are not a dogma , but a guide to action. Or their explicit
atheism. Anti-communists like to accuse Marxism of having backed into being
a religion. But this is somewhat ridiculous given its explicit atheism and
scientific world outlook. This is like accusing physicists of becoming
religious because they _discipline_ themselves to adhere to certain
fundamental concepts.  Academic _disciplines_ all have discipline,
naturally. Marxism is an intellectual discipline. Anti-communists like to
misrepresent this intellectual discipline as dogmatism, when it is the exact
opposite of dogmatism. Fact is, Marx , Engels and Lenin did not mean that
just anything "intellectuals" want to think up as extensions of Marxism are
valid. Much of what the "socialist" intelligentsia come up with can be
affirmatively harmful. This is why Engels wrote _Anti-Duhring_ , for
example. Stalin followed in the ways of the classics in taking an attitude
that Marxism is not just any old thing that a lefty intellectual says it is.

Again, I have no problem pointing to specifics that someone claims are
mistakes that Stalin made in summarizing the fundamentals of Marxism. But
those should be specified. The fact that he is giving a simpler version is
not a fault. That's the goal :trying to write something that the average
person who is not a heavy intellectual type can get some understanding of.

I'm not sure what Trotsky is getting at. The goal _should_ be to make
_everybody_ , including every "bureaucrat" ( wasn't Trotsky a bureaucrat?
)as good a Marxist as Lenin. Marxism should not be left to the
"intellectuals".  Why should intellectuals or the intelligentsia be some
kind of independent experts on Marxism ?  Popularization of Marxism should
be fundamental in a socialist country. As Lenin said , "to a man (sic) !

Even if Stalin betrayed all these principles in actuality, the fault was not
the purported goals themselves of popularization and anti-elitism,
party-state unity, etc.


Charles

^^^^^^^^^



I have no objection to quotes, I am looking at the intent and how they're
used. I think you have to place the text in the context within which it was
written and deconstruct it.

Why did Stalin see fit to pronounce on these philosophical-theoretical
issues at all? Essentially, because Marxism-Leninist ideology functioned as
a means of legitimating and unifying the party-state, and because the party
bureaucracy sought to lay down the law for the intellectuals and the
schools.

It was a political intervention, where the highest authority in the
bureaucratic hierarchy pronounced a verdict about what people should
believe. It's not unlike an ecclesiastical canon in the catholic church
(bear in mind that the Russian republics up to that time comprised mainly
deeply religious people).

The statements themselves are so general, that they can be interpreted in
numerous ways, and really don't provide much guidance - but the bureaucracy
adjudicated on the correct interpretation of the text, it was also in charge
of what might be quoted or not quoted legitimately.

Stalin just asserted his world authority in defining what Marxism is about,
and the pamphet is written in such a way, that the communist movement could
hardly disagree with it. It was the culmination of the bureaucratic
ossification of Marxist thought.

If you deconstruct the text, I think you have to pay attention to the
"silences" in the text, i.e. what is left unsaid. That is really what is
most significant about it.

I rather like Trotsky's quip: "every petty bureaucrat thinks he's standing
on the shoulders of Karl Marx directing the course of history".

Die I lacked a call Ma tear I all ism. His store I call Ma tear I all ism.
Yea.

Jurriaan


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism